60-70in. TV LCD, LED what model, from who? - less than 3K

Danberg · « **on:** 3 Mar 2013, 05:35 pm »

My 10 yr old rear projection TV went on the fritz yesterday. Any mid price recommendations? Info on brands that are NOT RELIABLE? Sources for reviews... other than Cnet?

Doublej · « **Reply #1 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 07:07 pm »

www.hometheater.com

http://www.whathifi.com/reviews/tvs

I like Samsung for LCD/LED TVs. Some folks like Sony.

YMMV

jarcher · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 07:39 pm »

I think the CNET rankings are pretty consistent w/ top reviewed models by Home Theater, Sound & Vision magazines, etc.

Which means that Panasonic plasmas get the best rankings for picture quality - and often for value as well. I noticed that you didn't have "plasma" in your subject title, but for just under $3K (usually around $2,850 online) the Panasonic TC-P65VT50 is not only in your price / size requirement, but is probably the best flat panel you can get at any price short of the ridiculously expensive Elite Pro-60X5FD, which costs about $5500.

In LCD / LED, the Sony XBR X850, X929 and X950 models are the top of the line and highly rated as well. Problem is that the 65 inch X929 & X950 are out of your budget (about $4,800 & $5,200 respectively) and the maximum size on the X850 is 55 inches.

Honestly things get very expensive on the high end LCD / LED side in the 60-70 inch range. If you must have an LCD / LED, I would suggest going for one of the Sony X850 or X950 in 55 inch : about $2500 and $3200 respectively.

But for me the best option would be the Panasonic plasmas : i.e. the TC-P65VT50 @ $2850, or even the Panasonic TC-P65ST50 @ $2150. The VT is the very best, but not sure it's worth the extra $700 (?) or the ST model.

P.s. I don't think, particularly at your price range, there are that many dodgy brands / models. If you're shopping Panasonic / Sony / Samsung / LG I doubt you're going to have reliability issues.

Danberg · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 08:28 pm »

Thanks "jarcher", lots of good information.

I am not approaching this as I would my "audiophile" system. Just looking for a decent picture in a large screen, at moderate cost. Don't want to start a flame war, but am not excited about the "plasma" units I have looked at. Bluntly, they have bland looking pictures to me. I like the contrast of LED's. However, I do appreciate your suggestions / information.

Ron D · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 09:16 pm »

$1K may be lower than you are looking to spend but maybe it could be a stop gap measure for a year or two until the 4K units come down in price:

http://hometheaterreview.com/vizio-e601i-a3-60-inch-led-hdtv-reviewed/

disclaimer - Vizio Tvs are not typically available in Canada (where I reside) so I cannot personally attest to their quality/reliability but quite a few good reviews on the net...

jarcher · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 09:29 pm »

Quote from: Ron D on 3 Mar 2013, 09:16 pm

$1K may be lower than you are looking to spend but maybe it could be a stop gap measure for a year or two until the 4K units come down in price:

http://hometheaterreview.com/vizio-e601i-a3-60-inch-led-hdtv-reviewed/

disclaimer - Vizio Tvs are not typically available in Canada (where I reside) so I cannot personally attest to their quality/reliability but quite a few good reviews on the net...

I was just about to recommend the very same thing for a highly rated 2D set at only $1K US. If you want 70 inch, the equivalent e701i-a3 is $1K more (I.e. $2k).

Plasma doesn't compete well at the store wall as LED sets are much brighter and pop out more. You almost have to take it on faith that the better black levels, viewing angles, speed, etc will be worth it when you have it set up at home. For non critical viewing I certainly could not blame anyone for getting one of those 60 inch $1k LED sets.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Mar 2013, 11:26 pm »

What do you define as "mid price"?

Danberg · « **Reply #7 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 12:19 am »

I consider mid-price (my budget) less than $2,900.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #8 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 12:23 am »

Gotcha.
Have you thought about a front projection unit? Or will your room not support it?

Bob

jqp · « **Reply #9 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 12:29 am »

I would like the same as Danberg, but less than 0.8k?

Actually I would settle for 1.5k probably...the Superbowl and CES being over, is this the best time to shop for a very large 2D set?

I would pay a few hundred more for one of those new 4K sets though

I almost got a Panasonic 65" for 2K a couple of years ago...hard to believe I don't have one yet, maybe its because my cable TV/cable modem wiring in my house has issues and I watch more "TV" on my 30" PC screen or at my friends house. But I am letting Danberg motivate me here.

I agree that it is really a stopgap until 4K screens are here, but I figure it will be a couple of years before I get one of those.

Napalm · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 01:03 am »

An interesting point of view from the folks at http://badcaps.net/ is that Panasonic is using its own (reliable) capacitors in their electronics. Other manufacturers of electronic goods are sourcing capacitors from various third parties, sometimes with results well documented on the mentioned site.

Danberg · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 04:59 am »

Great responses! Thanks.

However, pardon my ignorance... what does "4K" stand for? I thought it meant $4,000, but the more often I see it in the context mentioned, I realize that I am not understanding the term.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 12:17 pm »

Well the fun part about picking out a display is that you only need to please yourself, but others will always have other opinions.

I exclusively own Panasonic plasma's. I find their picture to be natural. My best friend owns both an LG plasma, and an LG LED. He uses the plasma for the main TV, and the LED screen for the kids gaming setup. He likes the pop the LED has for gaming.

I will consider all types when I end up picking up another display for my basement project. There will actually be 2 displays down there. I expect the one in the work out area may not be a plasma, but I suspect the main dispay will be.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 01:58 pm »

Quote from: Danberg on 4 Mar 2013, 04:59 am

Great responses! Thanks.

However, pardon my ignorance... what does "4K" stand for? I thought it meant $4,000, but the more often I see it in the context mentioned, I realize that I am not understanding the term.

It's the newest resolution. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

BobM · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 06:19 pm »

I was looking for a 60" TV also, and decided I liked the Plasma's better than the other option. That being said, Samsung or Panasonic were the brands to beat. I went with a Panny GT series. There was little difference between the GT and ST in picture quality, but for the extra $100 or so I found the adjustability of the GT to be more to my liking than the presets of the ST. The VT's are slightly better, but not worth the extra premium to my eyes.

Also, I wound up getting a 55" rather than a 60" because there was a $500 markup jumping to the ever so slightly larger screen. That's a 40% bump for an extra 2" on a side. So shop wisely and look at all the options before you commit.

bummrush · « **Reply #15 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 06:40 pm »

Plasma, and as others have said Panasonic

Atlplasma · « **Reply #16 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 06:46 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 4 Mar 2013, 01:58 pm

It's the newest resolution. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

It's worth mentioning that there is little 4K content, but I'm read that upscaling 1080p to 4K can look quite nice. Of course, I'm holding out for 8K.

TF1216 · « **Reply #17 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 06:57 pm »

Are many of your excited about 4k/8k for standard sized TV's showing 2D content? If at normal viewing distances 720p versus 1080p can be a wash please realize so will 4k/8k. For those patiently waiting for 4k/8k, there is an interesting report online that explains how large of a pixel the human eye can distinguish. It is an extremely well done study. I will look for it then post it here. (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/)

I am excited for the newer formats when it comes to 3D watching and/or HUGE screens. That is when I feel the resolution will help out quite a bit. As it is now, love your 1080p sets because they sure are fun!

Atlplasma · « **Reply #18 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 08:43 pm »

Quote from: tf121682 on 4 Mar 2013, 06:57 pm

Are many of your excited about 4k/8k for standard sized TV's showing 2D content? If at normal viewing distances 720p versus 1080p can be a wash please realize so will 4k/8k. For those patiently waiting for 4k/8k, there is an interesting report online that explains how large of a pixel the human eye can distinguish. It is an extremely well done study. I will look for it then post it here. (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/)

I am excited for the newer formats when it comes to 3D watching and/or HUGE screens. That is when I feel the resolution will help out quite a bit. As it is now, love your 1080p sets because they sure are fun!

I've read some of those reports (and actually believe what they are saying). At the same time, I've also read comments that people prefer the higher resolution because it seems to deliver a more immersive experience. Kind of like what happens when you listen to high-rez music.

All that said, my 720p Pioneer plasma looks great from about 8 feet back. I'm sure the new 1080p Panasonics would satisfy just about anybody.

Doublej · « **Reply #19 on:** 4 Mar 2013, 10:51 pm »

I am sticking with my 46" Samsung until Apple comes out with a 70" TV with retinal display.